Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Min 2002-08-07 r-. TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Gram called the regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, August 7, 2002, in Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. ROLLCALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Berger, Fredericks, Gram, Thompson ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Slavitz PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Mcintyre, Town Attorney Danforth, Director of Community Development Anderson, Senior Planner Watrous, Director of Public W orksff own Engineer Echols, Chief of Police Odetto, Director of Administrative Services McVeigh, Administrative & Financial Analyst Stott, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi r--. CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISITNG LITIGATION (Section 54956.9(a)) Tiburon Residents (TRAUMAS) v. Town ofTiburon and MERA Xanadu v. Town ofTiburon ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Allan Littman, 100 Rolling Hills Road, suggested adjournment in honor of long-time resident, Nat Marans, who had passed away the previous week. Mr. Littman said that in addition to being involved in almost every important issue that came to the community's attention over the last 30 years, Mr. Marans had flown in the Battle of Britain and was later a prisoner of war in World War II. George Landau, 82 SugarloafDrive concurred with Mr. Littman's request. He recognized Mr. Marans as a person who understood that "democracy is a participatory sport," and said that Tiburon had a "lot of people who pay attention to what we do." r-- Town Council Minutes # 18-2002 August 7, 2002 Page J ,...... In reference to the July 31, 2002 Town Council meeting, Mr. Landau said that he did not mean to insult anyone by calling them a gorilla. He said that he had "nothing against gorillas" and showed a photograph of "Koko" (the Gorilla) that had graced his wall for many years. Allan Letkof, Sugarloaf Drive, referred to a question posed by Vice Mayor Slavitz at the July 31 meeting. He said it was erroneous to say that "it appears that the energy is the same or less" in comparing the proposed MERA antenna radiation (at 145 Sugarloaf) to the existing antennae in that location. He said that, based on his research, it could represent a five time (5X) increase in radiation and that this was a "nerve wracking thing for the cancer survivors on Sugarloaf." Mayor Gram announced that the Council would hold a special meeting the following evening (August 8, 2002) at 6:30 p.m. to approve the minutes and resolution of the July 31, 2002 meeting. Brian Lantier, 131 Sugarloaf, said he had seven questions he wanted to add to the record [concerning MERA] and submitted a letter to the Town Clerk. Mayor Gram noted that the [MERA] matter was in litigation and said that the Council was not at liberty to respond. Werner Zimmerman, One Place Moulin, asked if the conditions adopted by the Council (on July 31) included moving the propane tank at the 145 Sugarloaf site. Mayor Gram suggested that it /"""- was either in the resolution or that he should put his request in writing for further clarification. CONSENT CALENDAR I. Approval of Town Council Minutes - July 17,2002 Cuoncilmember Berger clarified two statements on page 5 of the minutes. 2. Recommendation by Director of Administrative Services - Accept June 2002 Town Investment Summary 3. Recommendation by Director of Public Worksrrown Engineer - FY 2002-03 Street Rehabilitation Program Plans & Specifications Mayor Gram asked about the cost of the program without the Paradise Drive portion if the funds were not forthcoming (from the State). Director Echols said that it would be treated as a bid alternate and that the engineer's estimate for the remainder of the work was between $550,000 - $600,000. 4. Recommendation by Director of Public Worksrrown Engineer - Accept Stewart Drive Underground Assessment District Improvements "'""' Town Council Minutes # 18-2002 August 7. 2002 Page 2 ,......, a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Accepting Upper Stewart Drive Utility Undergrounding Project Contract as Complete 5. Recommendation by Director of Administrative Services - FY 2002-03 Investment Policy a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Adopting a Statement of Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2002-03 6. Recommendation by Director of Administrative Services - Community Facilities District Assessment for FY 2002-03 a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Levying a Special Tax Rate for the Property Tax Year 2002-03 Community Facilities District No. 1985-1; Point Tiburon Development; Town ofTiburon 7. Recommendation by Director of Administrative Services - Ratify Memorandum of Understanding Between Town of Tiburon and Marin Association of Public Employees, SEIU, Local 949, effective July 1,2002 through June 30, 2005 ___ Town Manager Mcintyre said that there had been revisions to the MOU, none of which had a financial impact to the Town. Council asked that Item No.7 be removed for further discussion. MOTION: Moved: Vote: To adopt Consent Calendar Items I through 6, as amended, above. Berger, Seconded by Fredericks AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Slavitz REGULAR AGENDA 8. Recommendation by Director of Community Development and Town Attorney- Report on Fiscal and Other Impacts of Proposed November 5, 2002 Ballot Initiative Defining Prime Open Space Lands and Restricting Development on Such Lands Town Attorney Danforth introduced the item. She said that Council had asked Staff to prepare a report on the fiscal and other impacts of the proposed ballot initiative. Ms. Danforth said that Staff would present a report on these impacts, and recommended that Council take public testimony following the report. However, Danforth said that the only immediate action for Council was to decide whether to adopt the ordinance without change or to place it on the November 5, 2002 ballot pursuant to the California Elections Code. --- Town Council Minutes # 18-2002 August 7, 2002 Page 3 I"". Director of Community Development Anderson presented his portion of the report. With regard to fiscal impacts, Anderson said that the direct costs of the proposed initiative were not significant and would include revisions to the Town's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. He said that the legal and economic issues associated with administering the provisions of the initiative would require retention of experts on the "takings" issue which could cost thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. Mr. Anderson said that there might be an indirect cost to the Town in loss of revenue from building permits due to the probability that fewer homes would be developed if the initiative became law. Anderson also said that the amendments called for by the initiative were consistent with the Open Space and Conservation Element of the Town's General Plan; however, he said that it would severely limit the discretion of the Council in its review of development of the remaining 18 large vacant parcels potentially subject to the initiative. He said that the Council would be required to prohibit development (including the construction of any road, driveway or structure) on lands defined as "prime open space" by the initiative, except in the following limited circumstances: r- . Where a matter of "takings" would necessitate the granting of an Economic Exception; . Where an adverse environmental impact could be avoided if the initiative were not applied and would necessitate granting of an Environmental Protection Exception; . Where public health and safety concerns necessitated the granting of an Economic Exception; . Where compliance with State law regarding affordable housing necessitated granting an Affordable Housing Exception; . Where access to a site would be precluded without granting an Access Exception; and . By vote of the people. Director Anderson said that because the Town was approximately 96% built-out, the overall effect of the initiative on the community planning would be negligible in terms of future development, and that application of the initiative would likely further reduce the already low densities established for large vacant parcels in the General Plan. Anderson said that the initiative would not affect downtown Tiburon or any of the potential sites in the draft Housing Element where affordable housing was likely to be built. Anderson further stated that Staff did not envision that the initiative would significantly affect the general location of housing, general availability of housing or the ability of the Town to meet its Regional Housing Needs. He further stated that the Town did not rely heavily on the 18 potentially affected large vacant parcels to meet its regional housing needs because their achievable densities were already too low to be a major factor and that the sites were not amendable for construction of affordable housing projects. /"" Town Council Minutes # 18-2002 August 7, 2002 Page 4 ".-... With regard to impact on funding for infrastructure, Anderson said that the impact would be minimal. In addressing the impact on the uses of vacant parcel of land, Anderson stressed that the initiative would have no impact on individual parcels or lots where only one home was contemplated for construction. He said of the remaining 18 parcels, eight were within the town limits; two were in unincorporated Strawberry, and eight were in the unincorporated area of Paradise Drive. He went on to analyze the potential impacts on each parcel but said that any conclusions would be speculative in nature because, in most cases, the Town did not have enough information or any applications on file to determine the bona fide impacts. However, Mr. Anderson analyzed the potential impact of the initiative on the following applications or properties [his comments are contained in the Staff Report]: I) Tiburon Court 2) Lower Trestle Glen 3) Martha Company 4) Tiburon Glen 5) Parente Property 6) Sorokko Property 7) Other Properties (Ring Mt. area) 8) Rabin Property ./"""-. 9) Hon Property 10) Pourian Property 11) Soda LLC Property 12) Lerner, et al. Property 13) Traeger Property 14)BRC Property 15) Keil Property 16) Swahn Property Director Anderson said that the options available to property owners if the initiative was adopted would be to develop their one dwelling; comply with the initiative on the other aspects of its regulations; challenge the initiative; or (in the case of the unincorporated areas) turn to the County for a development application to avoid the initiative altogether. Councilmember Berger expressed concern that the initiative would dictate the location of development on a property in too "narrow" a fashion, which could result in poor planning. Director Anderson agreed that the initiative would "hamstring" the Planning Commission and Town Council with respect to the location of development while forcing the Town to approve a minimum density. He said this could result in inferior site planning after expensive litigation. ~. Town Council Minutes # 18-2002 August 7, 2002 Page 5 I"""' Mayor Gram asked Director Anderson if the Town would need to hire more Staff if the initiative was adopted. Anderson said that because of the Town's practice of hiring contract planners, a service paid for anyway by the applicants, its passage would probably not result in the addition of Town Staff. Town Attorney Danforth gave an overview of the legal options before the Council. She said that adopting the initiative without change raised an issue of CEQA compliance. Danforth said this was a "gray area;" CEQA would not apply to a decision to place the measure on the ballot but arguably might apply to a decision to adopt. Ms. Danforth also said that adoption by Council would guarantee "a swift and sure result" in that the initiative [as ordinance] would become effective 30 days from tonight's meeting. She said that if Council voted to call an election, it would consolidate with the County for election services at the November 5, 2002 general election, for a cost of around $8600. If passed at that time, the initiative would not become effective until certification of the vote, or around December 14, 2002. Ms. Danforth also reviewed the types oflegal challenges that might be faced by the Town if the initiative was adopted. She delineated the types of challenges: a) procedural (not generally favored by the courts); b) facial; and c) as-applied (in which a property owner would state that the Town had in some way violated his/her rights through its application of the initiative). ,....., Danforth said that the Economic Exception provision contained in the initiative was meant to address that latter challenge, but noted that challenges could still be mounted on either side depending on a point of view as to whether the Town was either too lenient or too strict in its interpretation. As to the cost of litigating challenges, Ms. Danforth said that normally the trial phase would be between $100,000 - $ 200,000 per case, and could go as high as $800,000 as a worst case scenario. She said that an appeal could be $150,000 and to add another $100,000 - $200,000 if the matter went all the way to the Supreme Court. In addition, Danforth said that a public agency rarely was granted attorney's fees and could be liable for the challenger's legal fees (not likely, but possible, according to Danforth). Ms. Danforth said that the Town "does not have a litigation-free history with respect to its land use regulation," and that it was routinely faced with litigation by either applicants or opponents of its land use decisions. Therefore, Ms. Danforth recommended that the Town Council accept public testimony on the matter and then proceed to either adopt the initiative by ordinance or place it on the November 5, 2002 ballot (by adopting the necessary resolutions). ,,-... Town Council Minutes # 18-2002 August 7, 2002 Page 6 r-.. Mayor Gram asked if the ability of the Council to settle legal suits would be impacted by the initiative. Ms. Danforth said that it would considerably limit the settlement power of the Council. Mayor Gram asked whether the Council was likely to be sued for not granting economic exceptions; Ms. Danforth said that an economic exception could be the basis for another lawsuit by an opponent (ofa project), and that it did limit the Town's approval process. Councilmember Fredericks asked whether it would be justified to ask the applicant to pay the costs for compiling data pertaining to a "takings" challenge, just like an applicant has to pay for the cost of an ElR. Director of Community Development Anderson said that such an analysis would require the Town to retain independent consultants as experts. Town Attorney Danforth said that the Town could amend its existing regulations in order to require applicants to fund independent consultants retained by the Town. Councilmember Berger asked whether there was in fact a method of defining a "secondary" ridgeline. Director Anderson said that for purposes of the initiative they were already defined on a map which was adopted by Town Council resolution (in 1992). Berger wanted to know whether they were "those and no others." Anderson said yes, per the initiative definition. Councilmember Berger also asked for clarification, or a "pecking order," as to the limitations on how to redesign or relocate a dwelling if an exception was indeed met. Director Anderson said it r-. would depend upon the type of exception being requested and said that a "pecking order" was delineated for the Takings Exception, the Environmental Exception, and Affordable Housing Exception, but not for an Access Exception. Director Anderson said that the purpose of the Environmental Impact exception was to "throw common sense" into the equation and noted that, in any event, the Town Council would still have the ability to override the requirements of the initiative on a 4/5 vote in certain circumstances. Councilmember Berger asked how much of the Town (land) was affected by the initiative, and suggested that someone should prepare an "overlay" to use as illustration. Mr. Anderson said that the level of study required to do this would be "enormous," and that an EIR would be required for each property to provide the detailed information needed to determine what was indeed Prime Open Space. He said that his analysis of the 18 parcels attempted to provide a general overview of the impact. Councilmember Thompson thanked Staff for a thorough report. He said that there were certain aspects of the initiative that were "wildly subjective and that in some ways it allowed an increase in development. He said that many applicants already felt that their property was being taken or [that the Town was imposing] an economic hardship. Thompson said that a lot of developers went bankrupt and that he hoped that the initiative would not place the Council in a position of guaranteeing them a profit. ",.-., Town Council Minutes # 18-2002 August 7. 2002 Page 7 r"' Mayor Gram asked if suits were filed that challenged the form of the petition and the ballot initiative, who would defend them. Town Attorney Danforth said that the Town would assist and be named as a party in interest but she assumed the proponents would be "the laboring oar." Mayor Gram wanted to know if that meant they would pay the defense costs. He did not receive a direct reply from any of the proponents who were in the audience to this question. Mayor Gram then opened the public portion of the hearing. He asked the proponents to state why they thought the Town needed this initiative versus what was contained in the existing General Plan, and whether the concept of economic exceptions had been successfully applied and/or challenged. Mayor Gram reminded the Council that the primary decision before it tonight was to choose whether to adopt the initiative by ordinance or place it on the ballot. Jerry Riessen, 616 Ridge Road, ballot initiative proponent, said he was the Co-Chair of the Last Chance Committee, which had over 10 years of history of protecting open space within the Town of Tiburon. He said the Committee had worked with the Town to raise $8 million to buy the Jay and Harroman properties. Riessen said the "bottom line" was why anyone would want less open space protection and more traffic and more houses. He said that the proponents recognized that developers had rights and ",-... that they (the Committee) had taken a lot of time, including hiring professionals on both sides, to try to build in flexibility into the initiative. As a result, Riessen said, the proponents had gotten well over 15% of the registered voters within the Town to sign the initiative petition within a very short time frame. He said that it was a message that the people wanted to protect open space to the "maximum extent feasible" as stated in the General Plan and that the initiative was a vehicle to accomplish this. He said the initiative would put the framework in place to make the General Plan real and enforceable, not subject to Town Council "comings and goings." Mr. Riessen said he did not believe the provisions of the initiative would restrict the Town Council due to the provision of exceptions and the veto power of the Council by a 4/5 vote. Councilmember Thompson thanked Mr. Riessen for his years of community service. He asked Mr. Riessen his opinion of Staff' s analysis of the effect of the initiative on various properties. Mr. Riessen said that he agreed with Staff that "it was hard to say" what the outcome would be, and said the analysis was both "reasonable and speculative." However, he said that he was not "intimately familiar" with the 18 properties in question and would defer to the judgment of the Director of Community Development on this issue. Councilmember Thompson said that he envisioned a "radical reduction" in the expectations of developers if the initiative passed. Mr. Riessen said that it was not radical; that the number (of units) approved by the Town was never the same number as stated in the original application and gave the example of the Jay property application. He said that it was common knowledge that ",-... Town Council Minutes # 18-2002 August 7. 2002 Page 8 r- maximum numbers of units were routinely applied for and that the expectation was that much lower numbers would be approved. In response to a question from Councilmember Thompson about whether the initiative would add subjectivity to the process which might contribute to the possible litigation, Mr. Riessen said that the issue of "takings" would require the Town to hire an additional group of consultants, but that the Town already routinely hired consultants for traffic, air, biology, water, soils, etc., and made decisions based on their findings. Riessen said that the initiative was very clear on the exceptions allowed and that it would not add "voodoo" to the process. Perl Perlmutter, an attorney from Shute, Mihaly and Weinberg, retained by the Last Chance Committee, said he agreed with the Town Attorney on most issues in that the initiative was not raising credible legal issues or posing a credible threat oflitigation. He said the advantage of the initiative to the Town Council was the Economic Exception procedure. He said that the provision would require a developer to provide data that would assist the public agency in making a decision and ensuring that this information was available "up front" and at the developer's expense. Mayor Gram asked who would be considered a "takings expert." Mr. Perlmutter said that an example would be an economic consultant hired to determine a "reasonable rate of return." Mayor Gram asked whether the tenets of the initiative had been used elsewhere (in the State). 1"'"". Mr. Perlmutter said that in fact the League of California Cities through its Institute for Local Self Government had recommended the adoption of an economic variance procedure. He said that cities such as Malibu and Napa had adopted such procedures, but that they were relatively new. In responding further to Mayor Gram, Mr. Perlmutter said that Malibu had gone through the development process where the takings issue had come up and needed an economic analysis. Finally, Mr. Perlmutter agreed with Mr. Riessen that the initiative would ensure the long-term viability of the Town's General Plan and goals by "locking in" existing policies which would be difficult to change over time. He said the initiative would curb "haphazard growth" and promote good land use policies. Mayor Gram posed the question of whether citizen referendum might be a better alternative than a ballot initiative. Mr. Perlmutter said the referendum process only allowed 30 days to gather signatures and that it would be too cumbersome to achieve 18 times in a row. Allan Littman, speaking against the initiative, said that the definition of a secondary ridgeline reminded him of Alice in Wonderland, in that it was "whatever I say it is...". Mr. Littman said the initiative raised issues of grave importance to the Town, such as fairness, consistency and economy. Littman said that of the 18 properties affected, 100 acres were within the Town limits and 300 were outside. Littman stated that this was the "most valuable property in the County of Marin and probably in the State," and that "the people who own it are not going to stand by and let it be taken from their families." r". Town Council Minutes # 18-2002 August 7, 2002 Page 9 ,........ Mr. Littman said that the people who signed the petition did not think they would have to "pay for it," which was an illusion. He said that the initiative would be known as "the lawyer relief act" and that it would "substitute legal procedures for planning." He said that the definition of prime open space was subjective, that "one man's open space is another man's residence." Mr. Littman said that he represented the Rabin and Soda property owners, and that both properties were in essence "collateral damage" to what amounted to an "attack" on the Martha Property development. He urged the Town Council not to adopt the initiative (as an ordinance) and not to be "reckless" with the Town's finances. He pointed out that he had served on the Council during the building moratorium [Measure C] and that, for example, the Agins development ended up "far worse" than if there had been no moratorium. Littman said he felt that the estimated costs oflitigation previously stated were low and that in a condemnation case, the value of the property would be assessed on its value at the "time of taking." He estimated the value of Tiburon ridgeline property to be approximately $1 million per acre. Gary Ragghianti, former Town Attorney now representing the Rabin and Soda property owners, said he would "view with great suspicion any lawyer who purports to tell you what future courts will do regarding the 'takings' issue." He said that the Council should not adopt the initiative and further, that the Staff report should be made public and be the basis for public discussion and debate. "..... Mr. Ragghianti said that the Town Council would not be able to "short cut" the debate on takings, and asked them to look at the experience in the trial courts on this issue. He concluded that, if adopted, the initiative would result in a great deal of pain, staffing problems and expense to the Town. He said that the Town had been "a guardian of the environment" and asked what was wrong with its current laws and processes. He concluded that the initiative would result in such complications for the Town Council that it would "rue the day." Finally, Mr. Ragghianti asked for confIrmation of a staff comment that properties outside of the Town's limits could be developed in the County. He said that if that were the case, then the Soda property would make one less application for the Town to deal with if the initiative passed. Chip Nielsen, Tiburon resident, disputed some of the comments pertaining to two cases handled by his law fIrm which were cited in a letter submitted by the Shute Mihaly fIrm. He also asked the Town to consider his letter which raised questions about the validity of the form of the initiative. Shawn Zovod, attorney from Bingham McCutcheon representing Serge Sorroko (lower Kilgore property) and Anders Swahn (Martha Shores Property), said that the impartial analysis prepared by the Town should include the cost oflitigation so that the voters would be informed of the cost and inevitability oflitigation. "..... Town Council Minutes # 18-2002 August 7, 2002 Page 10 r-- Ms. Zovod said the initiative presented "significant risks to the taxpayers" which should be revealed to them, and said that even if only half of the 18 property owners sued the Town it would represent (possibly) $9 million worth of litigation costs. Kirk Hanson, Spanish Trail, former Mayor, said that although he respected Mr. Riessen he found the initiative to be "incredibly disturbing" and expressed great concern of its outcome if adopted. He said that it was "an insult to the process" which would "take away representative government." He cited his experience with large developments (Pt. Tiburon) while he was on the Council, approval of which went to referendum and was still passed by 62.8% of the voters. He said that the building moratoriurn in 1987-88 "almost bankrupted the Town," and that ensuing settlements ended up allowing more houses rather than fewer. Mr. Hanson said that only a few hundred homeowners were actually behind the initiative, and that all the facts needed to be available to the voters. He warned that passage of the initiative would result in a "financial disaster." George Landau, initiative proponent, said that he was one of the people who had obtained signatures on the petition "out oflove for the Town." He said the initiative explained its provisions "in detail" and that "we're taking the long view of things." He said the definitions [of prime open space and secondary ridgelines, etc.] were necessary "so that people won't be wishy washy." r-- Mayor Gram closed the public hearing. He said the comment by one of the speakers [Littman] that this was the only public hearing on the initiative was correct, but he said it would be advisable to set one or two public debates with both the proponents and opponents. Councilmember Berger said that the issues presented in the Staff report were of "terrific interest" and that everyone needed a chance to study them further. Councilmember Fredericks said that the proponents and opponents appeared to be "on the same side" in their desire to protect open space. However, she said the initiative would shift the burden to the landowner to provide necessary information (in the application process), and that lawsuits were "the norm" when density was reduced. She said the initiative should go to the voters to decide. Councilmember Thompson concurred that the initiative should be placed on the ballot. However, he said he was concerned that the matter could become "trivialized" as one of "for or against" open space. He said he looked forward to the debates. Mayor Gram said there was no question that the matter should be placed on the ballot. He said he had debated it for 14 - 16 months with the proponents and that there were two sides to the issue. ,....., Town Council Minutes # 18-2002 August 7, 2002 Page II T" MOTION: Moved: Vote: MOTION: Moved: Vote: MOTION: Moved: Vote: To adopt the resolution calling an election for the purposes of placing the initiative on the November ballot Thompson, seconded by Fredericks AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Slavitz To adopt the resolution requesting election services and consolidation with the County of Marin Berger, seconded by Thompson AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Slavitz To direct the Town Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the measure. Thompson, seconded by Berger AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Slavitz Mayor Gram called for a 10-minutes recess at 9:45 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:55 p.m. 9. Recommendation by Traffic Safety Committee - Del Mar Traffic Improvement Implementation Plan r"' Director of Public WorksITown Engineer Echols said that the Traffic Safety Committee held a meeting on June 16,2002 to discuss the fInal segment of the Tiburon Peninsula Traffic Safety Committee report that contained recommendations pertaining to the Del Mar School area. Echols said that representatives from the Reed Union School District and the Del Mar Neighborhood Associations had attended the meeting and had also made recommendations. After hearing public testimony, the Traffic Safety Committee recommended the following traffic safety improvements in the area: 1. Install a stop sign at the intersection of Rowley Circle and Howard Drive and stencil the appropriate warning "Stop Ahead" on the pavement. 2. Install a "No-U-Turn" sign at the intersection of Hilary Drive and Howard Drive. 3. Shorten the red curb area on Avenida Miraflores at the main entrance to Del Mar School. 4. Paint a red zone at the corner curb on the southwest side of Hilary Drive and Rowley Circle. Director Echols said that some other modifications proposed by the neighbors required further review and that Town Staff would continue to meet with representatives of both the Association and RUSD to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed improvements, and to refine any further proposed traffic safety improvements for the Del Mar School Area. In addition, Echols --. Town Council Minutes # 18-2002 August 7. 2002 Page 12 I""' recommended that the Town retain a traffic engineer to study changes to the Rowley Circle intersection. Councilmember Berger asked whether the engineer could study the other recommendations proposed by the Traffic Safety Committee, as well. Mr. Echols replied that most of the changes had indeed been addressed by traffic engineers and were contained in the Dana Whitlock and W - TRANS reports previously submitted to the Council, but not the changes to the Rowley Circle intersection. Mayor Gram opened the public hearing. Jim Wilson, representative from the Del Mar Neighborhood Association, asked that his group be given a chance to evaluate any future signage in the area as there was a proliferation of signs, especially with the new signs being installed in the vicinity of the school. He thanked the school officials for their excellent cooperation now and in the future if some of the recommendations did not work out. He also reiterated the need for a traffic engineer to look at the Rowley Circle "No-U-Turn" proposal. Mayor Gram closed the public hearing. MOTION: To adopt the Resolution approving the installation of a stop sign at the intersection of Rowley Circle and Howard Drive along with the other Staff recommendations (2 through 4) stated above. Thompson, seconded by Fredericks AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Slavitz r-- Moved: Vote: PUBLIC HEARING 10. Appeal of Design Review Board Decision - Approval for Construction of a 3-car Parking Deck at 1859-1865 Mar West Street Assessor's Parcel Nos. 59-061-29 & 35 Applicants - Hakan & Mona Billie Appellants - Gary & Linda Lisk Senior Planner Watrous presented the report. He said that on June 6, 2002, the Design Review Board had approved a Site Plan and Architectural Review for the construction of a parking deck, with a variance for reduced front yard setback on property located at 1859 & 1865 Mar West Street. Watrous said that the property owners of 1859 Mar West, Gary and Linda Lisk, had appealed the decision to the Town Council. Mr. Watrous gave some historical background. He said that the owners of the property at 1865 ,,-... Town Council Minutes # 18-2002 August 7. 2002 Page 13 ,-... Mar West (the Bille Trust) had a recorded parking easement across the adjacent lot at 1859 Mar West, which would allow the owners of 1865 Mar West to develop and utilize parking spaces on a specified portion of the property at 1859 Mar West. Watrous said that the Town Attorney had reviewed a copy of the easement and had determined that it did in fact give the owners of 1865 Mar East the authority to submit the subject site plan application. He said that the appellants (the Lisks) had also objected to the validity of this request. Senior Planner Watrous said that an existing two-car parking deck was situated on the property at 1859 Mar West, which was similar in design to the proposed deck, and that it would cantilever above the front portion of the site over a sharp down slope toward the street. In addition, two at- grade parking spaces were proposed (in the application) in the area between the two homes on these properties. Mr. Watrous presented the four grounds of the appeal: r-- I) Town Staff erred in accepting the subject application for review by the Design Review Board (DRB); 2) The DRB failed to limit the total number of vehicles allowed to park on the parking easement; 3) The DRB did not adequately consider alternative parking options or the impact on the parking deck on neighbors; 4) The DRB violated its procedural rules by allowing comments after the public comment period was closed. Mr. Watrous said that the agreement between the appellants and the applicant gave the applicant the authority to submit the application; that the DRB followed the guidelines for Site Plan and Architectural Review and variances, and appropriately applied the Hillside Design Guidelines in its review of the project; that the decision of the DRB is supported by visits to the appellants' property and evidence in the record. He recommended a denial of the appeal by Council. Mayor Gram opened the public hearing. Councilmember Fredericks asked whether the DRB had looked at the slope on the property as being an engineering problem. Mr. Watrous replied that the engineering issues are not within the purview of the DRB, but are addressed during the building permit process. Appellant Gary Lisk said the DRB had reached its decision in error. He said that the Bille Trust representative had mischaracterized their intentions and were not willing to compromise. He said that they should try to accommodate the Lisk's concerns. Councilmember Berger asked whether the description of the proposed parking deck existed at the time the Lisks purchased the property. Mr. Lisk replied that the only design he saw was for a three-car parking area. r-. Town Council Minutes # 18-2002 August 7, 2002 Page 14 -.. Michael Heckmann, architect, said he was hired by the Lisks to review the DRB application and to respond to whether there might be other options to the approved design. He said that he had concluded that due to the sizeable elevation difference and compactness of the area that the proposed grades were not possible to achieve. He also said that the steps encroached eight or nine feet into the circulation area on the Lisk property, and suggested that they be rebuilt. Mr. Heckmann presented several sketches of revised site plans to the Council. A representative of the applicant asked whether new evidence could be presented at an appeal hearing. Mayor Gram said that it was not encouraged; Mr. Heckmann responded that the sketches were made merely to address the comment that there were no other options, not to replace the approved plans. Councilmember Fredericks asked whether the real problem was the third space for a compact car and how to regulate that and she commented that the plan presented no incentive for tenants to park in designated spaces. Mr. Heckmann agreed that the proposed parking spaces were not clearly defined and concluded that the third space was just not feasible (unless the driveway was made steeper). Jeff Johnson, an attorney for the Bille Trust, said that the disputed drawing (Exhibit 5; Sheet 2-A dated May 21, 1996) was prepared by the Lisk' s architect for "his plans and purposes" and was -.. signed by him (Mr. Lisk). A brief discussion ensued about when the easement agreement was signed by the parties. Hank Bruce, representing the owners of 1865 Mar West, architect of the approved plans, said that he could answer questions about the elevation. He said that "we can make it work," and that he had in fact looked at the changes in elevation referred to by appellants. Mayor Gram closed the public hearing. Councilmember Berger said that he remembered this property easement from his tenure on the Design Review Board, and concluded that the current DRB had looked at the current application to his satisfaction. Councilmember Thompson said that he too would uphold the decision of the DRB, but he said he understood the Lisk's concerns that the increased parking would create a situation where cars would block access to his home. He said that the adjacent property owners would have to ensure that this did not happen. Councilmember Fredericks said there was no delineation of the parking spaces and that this should be considered in the design (for tenants of the duplex). She said this would be an easy way to address the Lisk's concerns. -.. Town Council Minutes # 18-2002 August 7, 2002 Page 15 r--. Councilmember Berger concurred, noting that while it was not "public parking," something should be done to ensure that tenants parked on their respective property. Mayor Gram asked whether "no parking" or other signage on private property could be enforced by the police. Town Attorney Danforth said she would have to look into the question further. With regard to the easements, Mr. Johnson said that a fire truck turnaround area was not delineated on the Lisk property either, suggesting that Mr. Lisk or his guests could park anywhere on that property. Mayor Gram said he would vote to deny the appeal, but also stated that the plan check would have to address the issue of (the three-foot) elevation. MOTION: Moved: Vote: To deny the Lisk appeal and direct Staff to return with a resolution of findings Thompson, seconded by Berger AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Slavitz 11. Recommendation by Director of Community Development - Proposal to Amend Building Envelope at 5 High Meadow Lane - Lone Oak Properties, Owners; AP No. 58-100-72 a) Approve Amendment to High Meadow Precise Development Plan (PD#38) b) Accept Grant of Open Space Easement r--. Senior Planner Watrous introduced the item. Council waived the Staff Report on Item 11 a) and moved to approve the recommendation, as stated in the report. Director of Community Development Anderson recommended adoption of the resolution accepting the grant of open space easement (Item 11 b) following Council's approval of the above amendment to the building envelope at 5 High Meadow Lane. MOTION: Moved: Vote: MOTION: Moved: Vote: r--. To adopt the Resolution Approving the Amendment to the High Meadow Precise Development Plan Fredericks, seconded by Thompson AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Slavitz To adopt the Resolution Accepting the Grant of Open Space Easement at 5 High Meadow Lane Berger, seconded by Thompson AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Slavitz Town Council Minutes # 18-2002 August 7, 2002 Page 16 ,-.... 12. Recommendation by Director of Administrative Services - Cypress Hollow Landscape & Lighting District Assessment for FY 2002-03 a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Continuing Maintenance and Operation of the Landscape And Lighting District in the Cypress Hollow Subdivision in Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Director of Administrative Services McVeigh introduced the report and said that no written protests had been received. Mayor Gram opened and closed the public hearing. There was no public comment. MOTION: To adopt the above resolution for continuation of the Cypress Hollow Landscape and Lighting District. Thompson, seconded by Fredericks AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Slavitz Moved: Vote: r---. 13. Recommendation by Director of Public Worksffown Engineer- Repeal and Adopt New Chapter 30 of Town Code Pertaining to the Use of Gas-Powered Leaf Blowers and Hedge Trimmers Read by Title Only 2nd Reading & Adoption of Ordinance a) An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Repealing the Existing Chapter 30 of the Tiburon Municipal Code and Adopting a New Chapter 30 Regulating the Use of Gas-Powered Leaf Blowers and Hedge Trimmers Director Echols gave the report stating that the ordinance had passed first reading on July 19, 2002, and that it contained the Council's direction to add gas-powered hedge trimmers to the list of prohibited gas-powered equipment. Mayor Gram opened the public hearing. Dinny Waters, Mar West Street, asked if the Council had considered banning gas-powered leaf blowers all together. He said that he had discovered a "loophole" in both the existing and proposed ordinance pertaining to the regulation of times of use in commercial areas. In essence, Mr. Waters said, commercial users were (and would continue to be under the proposed ordinance) unregulated. -.. Town Council Minutes # 18-2002 August 7, 2002 Page 17 "....... Mayor Gram said he understood that the owners of Pt. Tiburon Plaza wanted to ensure that the lot was cleaned before the cars started arriving in the early a.m. Mr. Waters said that he had talked to the landscapers but that there was more than one and that they started as early as 6:00 a.m. in some instances. He said that there were three or four commercial lots within the Town, and all but one were located directly under homes like his. Mayor Gram asked if the Town had approached Pt. Tiburon to ask if they would buy newer, quieter model (gas) blowers. Town Manager Mcintyre said that the Chief of Police had done so; Gram suggested that the Town might consider amending the ordinance if they (commercial property owners) were unwilling to consider quieter models. Mr. Waters asked why commercial owners should be exempted; and why they should not be regulated with regard to hours like residential users. Councilmember Thompson agreed that Mr. Waters said he made a good point but said he wanted to try the current ordinance under consideration. However, he also said it might be good to regulate the hours of commercial use. Town Attorney Danforth said that the ordinance would have to be re-introduced if changes were made. .,....., Councilmember Berger said that he too heard the gas-powered blowers (in the downtown area) from his home and that they were "obnoxious." Mayor Gram directed Staff to schedule a public hearing and prepare for Council consideration a new ordinance which would include further regulation of hours of use (for electric blowers) and/or a possible ban of gas-powered blowers in commercial areas. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Consent Calendar Item 7: Memorandurn of Understanding between the Town of Tiburon and Marin Association of Public Employees (MAPE). Town Manager Mcintyre reviewed the changes on pages 5,10 & 11, 12, and 17. MOTION: Moved: Vote: To ratify the MOU between the Town and MAPE. Fredericks, seconded by Thompson AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Slavitz III III III ~ Town Council Minutes # 18-2002 August 7, 2002 Page 18 /'""" COUNCIL COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE REPORTS Councilmember Fredericks said that the Congestion Management Agency would like the Town to sponsor a workshop on the County-wide Transportation Plan. Councilmember Thompson said the Town should monitor a proposal by Golden Gate Bridge & . Transportation District to charge a fare for feeder buses. Council also commented about the Ferry Plaza project and asked about the status of the installation of the pavers. Director of Public WorksfTown Engineer Echols said Staff had tested two different kinds of mortar in order to determine which would hold up best for cleaning purposes. Council said it continued to receive complaints about the delays on the project. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Town Council Weekly Digest - July 18, 2002 Town Council Weekly Digest - July 25, 2002 Town Council Weekly Digest - August 2, 2002 /"" ADJOURNMENT Mayor Gram noted that although Mr. Marans rarely agreed with him on any issue, he would miss him. Councilmember Fredericks also shared an amusing anecdote about Nat. She said that she would always remember him for his vision of what our Town "should be," which he proposed passionately. There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Gram adjourned the meeting at 11 :05 p.m., in honor long-time resident and community activist, Nat Marans, sine die. TOMG ,,-.. D Town Council Minutes # 18-2002 August 7, 2002 Page 19